Comparative safety and efficacy of vasopressors for mortality in septic shock: A network meta-analysis

Vasopressin for Post-kidney Transplant Hypotension

Introduction

Hypotension after deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) is a risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF) and poor graft survival (GS). We hypothesize that vasopressin use in hypotensive DDKT recipients (DDKTRs) to increase blood pressure (BP) reduces DGF rates and is safe without increasing mortality.

Methods

Group with vasopressin "study group" (n = 45) was defined as DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 who required vasopressin for hypotension systolic BP (SBP) <120 mm Hg or diastolic BP (DBP) <60 mm Hg. DDKTRs with no-vasopressin "comparison group" (n = 90) were propensity score-matched DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 without vasopressin use. Primary outcomes were GS, creatinine and allograft biopsy rate at 1 year, DGF rate, and death during transplant hospitalization.

Results

Vasopressin group had lower mean maximum and minimum SBP and DBP in the operating room (OR). Median vasopressin start time post-DDKT was 2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 1-6), and duration of use was 42 hours (IQR 24-63). DGF, creatinine at 1 year, and allograft biopsy rates were comparable. No deaths occurred during transplant hospitalization. Multivariable analysis did not find an effect of vasopressin use on GS.

Conclusion

Treatment of hypotensive DDKTRs with vasopressin is safe and facilitated similar graft function and survival with that of nonhypotensive patients. In the absence of a randomized control trial, our study supports the safety of vasopressin therapy to prevent the adverse effects of hypotension.

Vasopressin versus norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim

Norepinephrine is currently the first-line vasopressor for septic shock. We conducted this meta-analysis to examine the outcomes of adult patients with septic shock who received vasopressin instead of norepinephrine.

Methods

We selected studies in adults with septic shock that compared the outcomes of patients treated with vasopressin versus norepinephrine. Cochrane ROB 2.0 and the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tools were used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs and observational studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.

Results

Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality rates (OR, 1.07; CI, 0.80-1.44) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR, 0.74; CI, 0.21-2.67) between the two groups. Similarly, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, mean arterial pressure at 24 h, urine output at 24 h, and serious adverse events also did not differ significantly. However, the odds of renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirement in the vasopressin group were substantially lower than in the norepinephrine group (OR, 0.68; CI, 0.47-0.98).

Conclusion

There were no differences in mortality, duration of hospitalization, and adverse effects in adults with septic shock across the two groups. However, the patients treated with vasopressin had lower chances of requiring RRT.

Relevance for Patients

Vasopressin use as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock showed a significant reduction in RRT, though there were no significant differences in terms of mortality and other adverse events. Therefore, vasopressin can be considered as a first-line vasopressor in septic shock patients with other risk factors which may contribute to renal failure requiring RRT.

Vasopressor and inotrope treatment for septic shock: An umbrella review of reviews

PURPOSE

To review the characteristics, findings and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on the effect of any vasopressor/inotrope on outcomes in adult patients with sepsis compared with either no treatment, another vasopressor or inotrope or fluids.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase (January 1993-March 2021). Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

Among the 28 SRs identified, mortality was the primary outcome in most (26/28) and mortality was usually (23/28) studied using randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Fifteen SRs focused exclusively on patients with sepsis or septic shock. Sepsis and septic shock were always grouped for the analysis. Publication bias was consistently low when studied. The most consistent findings were a survival advantage with norepinephrine versus dopamine, which disappeared in analyses restricted to 28-day mortality, and more arrhythmias with dopamine. However, these analyses were dominated by a single study. Only 2 SRs were judged to be of moderate-high quality. Lack of blinding and attrition bias may have affected the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of SRs on the effect of vasopressors/inotropes on the outcomes of adult patients with sepsis can be improved, but high-quality, multicenter, RCTs should be preferred to additional SRs on this topic.

A prospective observational study to explore the correlation of peripheral arterial pulse/resistance index, organ function, and inflammation in patients with septic shock

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of the functional status of blood vessels, especially the arterial system, plays a very important role in the judgment of the condition of septic shock patients and the guidance of resuscitation programs and the judgment of the therapeutic effect. We aimed to design an observational study protocol to explore the correlation of peripheral arterial pulse/resistance index, organ function and inflammation in patients with septic shock.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 60 patients with septic shock in the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University from June 2020 to September 2020 and 20 healthy volunteers will be enrolled. Total of 60 patients with septic shock will be randomly divided into 20 groups by lot method. Group 1: fluid resuscitation; Group 2: fluid resuscitation + norepinephrine; Group 3: fluid resuscitation + norepinephrine + ulinastatin; Group 4: healthy control group. Fluid resuscitation is an early goal-directed fluid resuscitation in which norepinephrine is adjusted by a senior intensive care unit specialist for clinical presentation and ulinastatin is pumped at 20,000 U/h. Index including vascular ultrasound, inflammatory factors, organ function will be collected and analyzed.

DISCUSSION

Existing studies on septic shock focus on hemodynamics of the heart, brain, and kidney, while the differences in blood flow between peripheral blood vessels and protective renal vessels may be consistent, and imaging analysis is still lacking. This study protocol aims to explore the correlation of peripheral arterial pulsation index/resistance index, organ function, and inflammation in patients with septic shock.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical trial registry: ChiCTR2000031565.

Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Septic shock is one of the major healthcare problems, affecting millions of people around the world every year. The object of this study is to find the best kind of regimen of vasopressors treatment in septic shock.

Methods

The PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find the included studies. Stata 15.1 was performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Results

After searching and screening the articles, finally we included articles about 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 arms (dopamine, dopexamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, norepinephrine + dopexamine, norepinephrine + epinephrine, norepinephrine + vasopressin, phenylephrine, terlipressin, vasopressin) and total 5,928 patients with septic shock. Compared with dopamine, the regimens (epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, and vasopressin) have significantly lower 28-day mortality. Ranking the regimens in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis for 28-day mortality, the result showed that norepinephrine + dopexamine was the best one (57.3%), followed by norepinephrine + epinephrine (14.8%), norepinephrine + dobutamine (10.9%), dopexamine (11.2%), terlipressin (9.8%), norepinephrine + vasopressin (2.4%), phenylephrine (1.2%), epinephrine (1.0%), vasopressin (0.5%), norepinephrine (0.0%), and dopamine (0.0%). In addition, for the results of arrhythmia and increased heart rate, the combination regimens groups did not showed inferiority to other single regimen groups.

Conclusions

Single dopamine had significantly higher 28d mortality. Combination regimens of vasopressors accounted for the best three therapeutic regimens. In treating patients with septic shock, using combining regimens probably gets more benefits.

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Catecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca²⁺ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed.

Results

A total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n = 1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n = 5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n = 19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n = 43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n = 19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n = 4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n = 3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n = 1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n = 258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n = 37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n = 41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n = 6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n = 127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n = 15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n = 6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n = 10 of 600).

Conclusions

The use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2427-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists in septic shock patients. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. The primary outcome was mortality. And secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of adverse events. In addition, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The results showed vasopressin receptor agonists use was associated with reduced mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, they had no significant effects on ICU length of stay (mean deviation (MD) - 0.08, 95% CI, - 0.68 to 0.52, I2 = 0%) and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 0.58, 95% CI - 1.47 to 0.31, I2 = 57%). Additionally, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between two groups (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.90, I2 = 57%), but vasopressin receptor agonists administration could significantly increase the risk of digital ischemia (RR 4.85, 95% CI 2.81 to 8.39, I2 = 26%). Finally, there was no statistical difference of cardiovascular events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.57, I2 = 1%), arrhythmia (0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.23, I2 = 23%), mesenteric ischemia (0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.55, I2 = 0%), diarrhea (2.47, 95% CI 0.77 to 7.96, I2 = 49%), cerebrovascular events (1.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 10.54, I2 = 0%), and hyponatremia (1.47, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.55, I2 = 0%) between two groups. Egger's test showed there was no significant publication bias among studies (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of vasopressin might result in reduced mortality in patients with septic shock. An increased risk of digital ischemia must be taken into account.

Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.